Evaluation and comparison of silorane resin composite to glass ionomer in occluso-proximal restorations of primary molars: A randomized controlled trial.

Viral P Maru, Purva Kulkarni, Rewant Chauhan, Salil S Bapat
{"title":"Evaluation and comparison of silorane resin composite to glass ionomer in occluso-proximal restorations of primary molars: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Viral P Maru,&nbsp;Purva Kulkarni,&nbsp;Rewant Chauhan,&nbsp;Salil S Bapat","doi":"10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_377_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In general, proximal restorations of primary molars fracture, so it is vital to study the new materials that could solve this problem. Hence, the present trial assessed the success of occluso-proximal atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using silorane and glass ionomer cement (GIC) in carious primary molars for a period of 2 years.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One hundred and ninety-two children between the age group of 4 and 9 years were randomly allocated to GIC or silorane. In the clinical set up, they were treated by a pediatric dentist, and their restorations were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary outcome was the survival of restoration, which was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and superior Cox regression models. As a sensitivity analysis, intention-to-treat (ITT) was executed. Sex, age, molar, jaw, cavity volume, and caries incidence were the independent variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The restoration survival after 24 months for GIC and silorane was 82.75% and 88.88%, respectively, whereas ITT analysis showed a success of 84.37% and 89.58% for GIC and silorane, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>With regard to longevity, there was no statistically significant difference between silorane and GIC in primary molar occlusoproximal ART restorations.</p>","PeriodicalId":35797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_377_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: In general, proximal restorations of primary molars fracture, so it is vital to study the new materials that could solve this problem. Hence, the present trial assessed the success of occluso-proximal atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations using silorane and glass ionomer cement (GIC) in carious primary molars for a period of 2 years.

Materials and methods: One hundred and ninety-two children between the age group of 4 and 9 years were randomly allocated to GIC or silorane. In the clinical set up, they were treated by a pediatric dentist, and their restorations were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary outcome was the survival of restoration, which was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and superior Cox regression models. As a sensitivity analysis, intention-to-treat (ITT) was executed. Sex, age, molar, jaw, cavity volume, and caries incidence were the independent variables.

Results: The restoration survival after 24 months for GIC and silorane was 82.75% and 88.88%, respectively, whereas ITT analysis showed a success of 84.37% and 89.58% for GIC and silorane, respectively.

Conclusion: With regard to longevity, there was no statistically significant difference between silorane and GIC in primary molar occlusoproximal ART restorations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
硅烷树脂复合材料与玻璃离聚体在磨牙近端咬合修复中的评价和比较:一项随机对照试验。
目的:研究一种新型的修复材料,对解决近端磨牙骨折的修复问题具有重要意义。因此,本试验评估了使用硅烷和玻璃离子水门合剂(GIC)治疗龋齿的近端无创修复治疗(ART)的成功率,为期2年。材料与方法:将192名年龄在4 - 9岁之间的儿童随机分配到GIC或硅烷组。在临床设置中,他们由儿科牙医治疗,并在3、6、12、18和24个月时评估他们的修复情况。主要终点为恢复生存期,采用Kaplan-Meier和superior Cox回归模型进行分析。作为敏感性分析,我们执行意向治疗(ITT)。性别、年龄、磨牙、下颌、空腔体积、龋齿发生率为自变量。结果:GIC和硅烷的24个月修复生存率分别为82.75%和88.88%,而ITT分析显示GIC和硅烷的24个月修复成功率分别为84.37%和89.58%。结论:在寿命方面,硅烷与GIC在初级磨牙近端咬合ART修复中无统计学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (ISSN - 0970-4388) is the official organ of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. The journal publishes original articles and case reports pertaining to pediatric and preventive dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Bite force evaluation at maximal intercuspal position: An in vivo comparative study between stainless steel and zirconia crowns on primary molar teeth. Traumatic dental injuries - The psychological perspective! Determination and correlation of matrix metalloproteases profile and total antioxidant capacity in severe early childhood caries children - A randomized clinical trial. Assessment of changes in Streptococcus pyogenes levels using N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulfatase marker and pharyngeal airway space with appliance therapy in mouth breathers - An ELISA-based study. Reliability of three pain assessment tools in children requiring dental treatment: A comparative clinical study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1